Author of "Tasty: The Art and Science of What We Eat," on the science of taste, culinary history, and the future of food. My work has appeared in Smithsonian magazine, Wired, The Washington Post, Mother Jones, the Guardian and the Huffington Post. In a previous life I was a reporter for The Times-Picayune of New Orleans, where I contributed to several Pulitzer Prize-winning efforts. I am the co-author of "Path of Destruction: The Devastation of New Orleans and the Coming Age of Superstorms."

Our Politics Has Become A Series Of Insane Stunts

Nostalgia for the days when bipartisanship was actually occasionally practiced in Washington still dominates among the political establishment and media. The example of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill negotiating over tax reform is held up as something that still might be possible, if only. Of course, that’s not going to happen as the fight over the sequester cuts and debt limit approaches. It’s going to be messy and acrimonious and possibly catastrophic. Because the basic dynamic has changed. Washington operates by customs and behavioral norms as much as it does by laws and parliamentary rules. And in recent years customs and norms have increasingly gone out the window, and a basic, civics textbook approach to political negotiation that has accomplished many things in ordinary circumstances has been replaced by insane forcing mechanisms.

Using the debt ceiling as a hostage in a negotiation was unthinkable before 2011. Now, it is expected. Eagerly anticipated by some, rationalized by others. Take this column by Sen. John Cornyn, which prepares the ground for a government shutdown (and, presumably, default) as necessary measures:

The coming deadlines will be the next flashpoints in our ongoing fight to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. It may be necessary to partially shut down the government in order to secure the long-term fiscal well being of our country, rather than plod along the path of Greece, Italy and Spain. President Obama needs to take note of this reality and put forward a plan to avoid it immediately.

This is irresponsible. Cornyn is basically trying to force Obama to take political risks the GOP itself is unwilling to take (that is, outline entitlement cuts and restructuring), while directly threatening the economic chaos that would ensue when the government stops meeting its obligations. It threatens an actual, immediate catastrophe as a condition for dealing with a thus far distant, thus far imaginary one.

There is no good policy rationale for this radical approach. The economy is slowly recovering; threatening to submarine that recovery serves no one. The broader problem is, though, that this kind of crazy stunt has now become business as usual. As Alec MacGillis writes, in the months leading up to the 2011 debt ceiling fight, the idea of debt hostage-taking was seen as nearly unthinkable. Then, suddenly, it became routine, an ordinary part of the Washington game.

The Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza was more blunt in casting the debt-ceiling limit as the natural next step in negotiations: ”Make no mistake: No deal on the fiscal cliff was a political loser for Republicans; this is an issue they needed to get off the table in order to find better political ground — debt ceiling — to make their stand.”

So: a threat to plunge the nation’s into default and with it imperil the nation and world’s economy, seen only a year and a half ago as the political equivalent of a nuclear option, is now viewed as “better political ground.” What to make of this? The shift in mindset is surely in part a function of basic human nature: our remarkable ability — for good or ill — to adapt ourselves to new realities. More than that, though, it is a function of that far more Beltway-unique tendency, to report and comment on politics and governance as pure gamesmanship in such a way that conveys savvy but not judgment. And if it’s all a sport, who’s to object if one side has radically shifted the goalposts? Good for them, if they can get away with it. And after all, the higher the stakes in the clash, the better the story.

As the Republican Party has moved to the right, its policy goals have become simultaneously more extreme and more vague, to the point of incoherence. Combine this with the decline of shared rules and limits on behavior. More crazy, dangerous stunts are inevitable, and will be seen as business as usual. (Unless, maybe, the media decide to persistently point out just how crazy and dangerous they are.) And, in all likelihood, very little of substance will actually be accomplished.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

If he’s at 10, I’m at 5, a reasonable person would argue that we’ll eventually end up near 7.5, right? So I come up to 6 and he moves up to 12. I come up to 7 and he moves up to 14.

How do you negotiate with a bozo like that? Seriously. The answer is YOU CAN’T. Why? Because the man wants chaos. The man wants crisis. That is, after all, how you get things that weren’t obtainable under normal conditions.

Apparently, you are suggesting that Mr. Obama “chose to compromise” rather than fall off the cliff. He has shown us plebians many times how he chooses to lead. And lest we forget these words of our leader: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” Senator Barack Obama on March 16, 2006

That’s a totally different context, John. Obama made that statement after Bush’s Congress permitted two unpaid-for wars and the prescription give-away for seniors. TODAY, we are still climbing out of a recovery after, yes, doing some significant borrowed spending to keep the country afloat, which we did (fact!) far better than any other country suffering from the recession WE caused.

As I say over and over again, the biggest problem with conservatives approaches to spending is that they never, ever, EVER identify specifically what they would cut, WHY or what the effect would be. Wanna cut veterans benefits (so we only support the active military then, huh)? Medicaid (so what happens to the poor sick-let ‘em die on the streets…or just die a lot sooner than if they got adequate care)? Medicare (so let seniors try to figure out how to make their “vouchers” stretch further)?

All ridiculous proposals and all usually made while our bridges and roads crumble and public education (which I know a lot of conservatives don’t even support, just like they don’t really support the social safety net at all–and still without a thought to what to do with folks who’d fall through it after they cut holes in it). Indeed, the out-of-context issue I started commenting on illustrates the conservative problem of blame, blame, blame: It’s ALWAYS someone’s fault. It’s NEVER a reflection of reality-on-the-ground.

For example, reality-on-the-ground is that the country is NOT getting smaller. Nor is it getting simpler. And yet Republicans are always arguing like reducing the size (and complexity) of government makes sense. If they argued with specificity for making government more efficient and effective, I’d listen. But all they ever do is just say reduce its size, willy-nilly. People who are thoughtful instead of just resentful realize how silly that approach is.

Obama didn’t go off the cliff because he got everything he wanted! Ok, he got 96% of everything he wanted. Instead of $200/$250 he had to “settle” for $400/$450. He also had to “settle” for a slight adjustment in the estate tax. He got everything else Mr. McQuaid. The BIG win was no spending cuts! And remember this, it was Biden who had to finish the job. It was Joe Biden who convinced Obama to take it.

You don’t “think” Obama is a community organizer? You don’t “think” he wants chaos? You don’t “think” he wants crisis? You don’t think he’s a bully? You don’t “think” he has no interest in negotiating anything? You don’t “think” he’s a radical?

Ok, you’re obviously entitled to your opinion, but I’ve read the book. You haven’t. Obama taught a class on Alinsky methods at the University of Chicago. Please tell me you knew that, please!